Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

"Quasiturbine" White Paper presented by eMOTION! REPORTS.com - Page 6

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by daestrom on December 22, 2003, 7:40 pm
 

<snip>


rebuild

Expensive!

trained

That's the point that 'News' is missing.  THere is a *big* difference
between an engine that 'is far superior in concept', and one that is
superior overall.  Piston engines may not be superior in some areas, but
they have it all over Wankel and some other designs in other areas.  Like
reliability and maintenance costs.

The newest Wankel designs are only now seeing any widespread use because of
advances in material technology.  The seals of the '70's vintage engine were
&*#^$#.  Unless I can get 125k to 175k out of an engine with only moderate
routine maintenance, you'ld have to 'show me the money'.

When the QT has more than a few hundred hours of runtime between rebuilds,
then it's at least getting close.


And, if its performance or life expectancy isn't what it should be, it will
die a the same quiet death of thousands of 'garage companies' have.  No big
deal except to the garage owners ;-)  Or perhaps the developers will need so
much capital, they'll have to go in with a partner.  And if it *still* can't
be made practical after *that* money is gone, it will fade away.  But 5
years from now, someone will claim a conspiracy, that someone 'bought up the
rights' and shut it down to 'preserve big oil.'

daestrom



Posted by News on December 22, 2003, 9:02 pm
 



You, and many are missing the big point.  Legislation will force auto makers
into better efficiency.  Here is a concept, which is rather more than a back
of the envelope sketch, that appears to fit the bill using proven current
engineering technology.  Anyone who sneers the design is no engineer.
Engineers don't do that, they are objective.

A friend of mine is a an automotive design engineer.  For e.g., he has
worked on the Range Rover, Land Rover and Triumph bike engines.   I directed
him to the QT.  His response was very favourable, saying it was very good
design and sees no problems in implementation - the normal r&d iterations.
He has also worked on Ford designs in which Ford had no input whatsoever -
totally farmed out.  I asked him what he thought about it being taken up by
the big boys.  His reaction was mixed.  One was that they are ultra
conservative.  Another that only legislation will force them to look at it.
He also said some may take it up, like they did with the Orbital, and then
having it back burnered, just in case.  I rate this guys opinions.


That is stating the obvious. The piston seals of the otto engines were
pretty crap in the 1900s too.  Since the 1970s far better seals and
evolutionary advances in the design have emerged.  Far sueriorr fully
synthetic oils have emerged too.


Most overhead cam engines required the rubber cam belts replacing every
50,000 miles or so.  Replacing rotary seals can mean taking off  a side
plate and sliding the seals out and sliding the new seals in.  Bolt back up.
No more hassle than replacing cam belts.  Modern seals are ceramic and are
very durable anyhow.

30 years ago, if you got 100,000 miles from an engine without major overhaul
you were doing good.  Advances in material, manufacturing methods,
lubricants and computer injection have increased longevity.  These advances
are also available to rotary engines too.


If a proven superior design was shelved then why?  Orbital is a prime
example of a superior design being seriously assessed in a highly favourable
way then ignored.

If you think that engineering could not come up with a better design than
the current anachronism that is the IC engine, over the past 100 years then
I think you are naive.  Nothing personal.  :-)



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003



Posted by Rusty Shackleford on December 23, 2003, 3:18 am
 wrote:



Engineers also base their conclusions on valid references.  Despite
several requests, you have provided none.  



Posted by News on December 23, 2003, 9:43 am
 

You have been pointed to the info.  I can't help it if you have no
engineering mind.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003



Posted by Bob Peterson on December 23, 2003, 2:46 pm
 

current

I am always suspicious of people who can only talk in generalities and can't
relaly talk to the specifics of issues.  It makes it really hard to
beleiveanything they say.  Claiming other people are unable to understand
gibberish is not the answer.



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread